SUMAN Vs. KAILASH KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the final judgment and decree dated 31.10.2019, passed by the learned Family Court, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi, thereby dissolving the marriage between the parties on a petition moved by the respondent/petitioner for seeking divorce from the appellant/respondent on the grounds of cruelty and desertion under Section 13(1)(ia) and (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (in short Act).

(2.) The facts as are relevant for the disposal of this appeal are that the parties were married in accordance with the Hindu rites and ceremonies on 24.11.1999, at Jaipur. After the marriage, the parties set up their matrimonial home in Delhi. Two children, a boy and a girl were born to them, the son on 22.01.2001 and the daughter on 22.09.2002. The respondent/petitioner alleged that the appellant/respondent had treated him with cruelty inasmuch as her conduct was such that caused him embarrassment and sullied his reputation and that of his family. In the course of their matrimonial life, he found that he could not trust the appellant/respondent as she was prone to borrow money from neighbours, strangers and even from the teachers and other staff at the school of his children. She further mortgaged the jewellery of his married sister with Muthoot Finance and had stealthily taken out Rs.16,000/- from his account by using the ATM Card, without his knowledge. There was an occasion when he had to defend the character of the appellant/respondent. In the said episode, he even lost his teeth as his neighbour physically assaulted him, for which an FIR was lodged. Moreover, the respondent/petitioner found that the children had learnt to steal money from him, upon seeing their mother do so. Though he tried to put up with everything in order to preserve the sanctity of the marriage, the appellant/respondent left the matrimonial home in the year 2011 and did not care to return.

(3.) On the other hand, appellant/respondent contended that the respondent/petitioner was irked with her as he had wanted only one child but she had wanted two and had conceived the second child against his wishes and that was the cause of differences between them. She denied that she had ever stealthily taken his money or had mortgaged the ornaments of her sister-in-law or had withdrawn money from her husband's account. Instead, she alleged that in March 2011, she had gone to her maternal home due to the death of her uncle but thereafter, she was not allowed entry in the matrimonial home.